Tweet
Whenever I see John Jenkins shoot, I can't help but hear Gus Johnson saying PURE!! Dude's got a sweet stroke!
The Rules of Pacers Digest
Hello everyone,
Whether your are a long standing forum member or whether you have just registered today, it's a good idea to read and review the rules below so that you have a very good idea of what to expect when you come to Pacers Digest.
A quick note to new members: Your posts will not immediately show up when you make them. An administrator has to approve at least your first post before the forum software will later upgrade your account to the status of a fully-registered member. This usually happens within a couple of hours or so after your post(s) is/are approved, so you may need to be a little patient at first.
Why do we do this? So that it's more difficult for spammers (be they human or robot) to post, and so users who are banned cannot immediately re-register and start dousing people with verbal flames.
Below are the rules of Pacers Digest. After you have read them, you will have a very good sense of where we are coming from, what we expect, what we don't want to see, and how we react to things.
Rule #1
Pacers Digest is intended to be a place to discuss basketball without having to deal with the kinds of behaviors or attitudes that distract people from sticking with the discussion of the topics at hand. These unwanted distractions can come in many forms, and admittedly it can sometimes be tricky to pin down each and every kind that can rear its ugly head, but we feel that the following examples and explanations cover at least a good portion of that ground and should at least give people a pretty good idea of the kinds of things we actively discourage:
"Anyone who __________ is a liar / a fool / an idiot / a blind homer / has their head buried in the sand / a blind hater / doesn't know basketball / doesn't watch the games"
"People with intelligence will agree with me when I say that __________"
"Only stupid people think / believe / do ___________"
"I can't wait to hear something from PosterX when he/she sees that **insert a given incident or current event that will have probably upset or disappointed PosterX here**"
"He/she is just delusional"
"This thread is stupid / worthless / embarrassing"
"I'm going to take a moment to point and
/ laugh at PosterX / GroupOfPeopleY who thought / believed *insert though/belief here*"
"Remember when PosterX said OldCommentY that no longer looks good?"
In general, if a comment goes from purely on topic to something 'ad hominem' (personal jabs, personal shots, attacks, flames, however you want to call it, towards a person, or a group of people, or a given city/state/country of people), those are most likely going to be found intolerable.
We also dissuade passive aggressive behavior. This can be various things, but common examples include statements that are basically meant to imply someone is either stupid or otherwise incapable of holding a rational conversation. This can include (but is not limited to) laughing at someone's conclusions rather than offering an honest rebuttal, asking people what game they were watching, or another common problem is Poster X will say "that player isn't that bad" and then Poster Y will say something akin to "LOL you think that player is good". We're not going to tolerate those kinds of comments out of respect for the community at large and for the sake of trying to just have an honest conversation.
Now, does the above cover absolutely every single kind of distraction that is unwanted? Probably not, but you should by now have a good idea of the general types of things we will be discouraging. The above examples are meant to give you a good feel for / idea of what we're looking for. If something new or different than the above happens to come along and results in the same problem (that being, any other attitude or behavior that ultimately distracts from actually just discussing the topic at hand, or that is otherwise disrespectful to other posters), we can and we will take action to curb this as well, so please don't take this to mean that if you managed to technically avoid saying something exactly like one of the above examples that you are then somehow off the hook.
That all having been said, our goal is to do so in a generally kind and respectful way, and that doesn't mean the moment we see something we don't like that somebody is going to be suspended or banned, either. It just means that at the very least we will probably say something about it, quite possibly snipping out the distracting parts of the post in question while leaving alone the parts that are actually just discussing the topics, and in the event of a repeating or excessive problem, then we will start issuing infractions to try to further discourage further repeat problems, and if it just never seems to improve, then finally suspensions or bans will come into play. We would prefer it never went that far, and most of the time for most of our posters, it won't ever have to.
A slip up every once and a while is pretty normal, but, again, when it becomes repetitive or excessive, something will be done. Something occasional is probably going to be let go (within reason), but when it starts to become habitual or otherwise a pattern, odds are very good that we will step in.
There's always a small minority that like to push people's buttons and/or test their own boundaries with regards to the administrators, and in the case of someone acting like that, please be aware that this is not a court of law, but a private website run by people who are simply trying to do the right thing as they see it. If we feel that you are a special case that needs to be dealt with in an exceptional way because your behavior isn't explicitly mirroring one of our above examples of what we generally discourage, we can and we will take atypical action to prevent this from continuing if you are not cooperative with us.
Also please be aware that you will not be given a pass simply by claiming that you were 'only joking,' because quite honestly, when someone really is just joking, for one thing most people tend to pick up on the joke, including the person or group that is the target of the joke, and for another thing, in the event where an honest joke gets taken seriously and it upsets or angers someone, the person who is truly 'only joking' will quite commonly go out of his / her way to apologize and will try to mend fences. People who are dishonest about their statements being 'jokes' do not do so, and in turn that becomes a clear sign of what is really going on. It's nothing new.
In any case, quite frankly, the overall quality and health of the entire forum's community is more important than any one troublesome user will ever be, regardless of exactly how a problem is exhibiting itself, and if it comes down to us having to make a choice between you versus the greater health and happiness of the entire community, the community of this forum will win every time.
Lastly, there are also some posters, who are generally great contributors and do not otherwise cause any problems, who sometimes feel it's their place to provoke or to otherwise 'mess with' that small minority of people described in the last paragraph, and while we possibly might understand why you might feel you WANT to do something like that, the truth is we can't actually tolerate that kind of behavior from you any more than we can tolerate the behavior from them. So if we feel that you are trying to provoke those other posters into doing or saying something that will get themselves into trouble, then we will start to view you as a problem as well, because of the same reason as before: The overall health of the forum comes first, and trying to stir the pot with someone like that doesn't help, it just makes it worse. Some will simply disagree with this philosophy, but if so, then so be it because ultimately we have to do what we think is best so long as it's up to us.
If you see a problem that we haven't addressed, the best and most appropriate course for a forum member to take here is to look over to the left of the post in question. See underneath that poster's name, avatar, and other info, down where there's a little triangle with an exclamation point (!) in it? Click that. That allows you to report the post to the admins so we can definitely notice it and give it a look to see what we feel we should do about it. Beyond that, obviously it's human nature sometimes to want to speak up to the poster in question who has bothered you, but we would ask that you try to refrain from doing so because quite often what happens is two or more posters all start going back and forth about the original offending post, and suddenly the entire thread is off topic or otherwise derailed. So while the urge to police it yourself is understandable, it's best to just report it to us and let us handle it. Thank you!
All of the above is going to be subject to a case by case basis, but generally and broadly speaking, this should give everyone a pretty good idea of how things will typically / most often be handled.
Rule #2
If the actions of an administrator inspire you to make a comment, criticism, or express a concern about it, there is a wrong place and a couple of right places to do so.
The wrong place is to do so in the original thread in which the administrator took action. For example, if a post gets an infraction, or a post gets deleted, or a comment within a larger post gets clipped out, in a thread discussing Paul George, the wrong thing to do is to distract from the discussion of Paul George by adding your off topic thoughts on what the administrator did.
The right places to do so are:
A) Start a thread about the specific incident you want to talk about on the Feedback board. This way you are able to express yourself in an area that doesn't throw another thread off topic, and this way others can add their two cents as well if they wish, and additionally if there's something that needs to be said by the administrators, that is where they will respond to it.
B) Send a private message to the administrators, and they can respond to you that way.
If this is done the wrong way, those comments will be deleted, and if it's a repeating problem then it may also receive an infraction as well.
Rule #3
If a poster is bothering you, and an administrator has not or will not deal with that poster to the extent that you would prefer, you have a powerful tool at your disposal, one that has recently been upgraded and is now better than ever: The ability to ignore a user.
When you ignore a user, you will unfortunately still see some hints of their existence (nothing we can do about that), however, it does the following key things:
A) Any post they make will be completely invisible as you scroll through a thread.
B) The new addition to this feature: If someone QUOTES a user you are ignoring, you do not have to read who it was, or what that poster said, unless you go out of your way to click on a link to find out who it is and what they said.
To utilize this feature, from any page on Pacers Digest, scroll to the top of the page, look to the top right where it says 'Settings' and click that. From the settings page, look to the left side of the page where it says 'My Settings', and look down from there until you see 'Edit Ignore List' and click that. From here, it will say 'Add a Member to Your List...' Beneath that, click in the text box to the right of 'User Name', type in or copy & paste the username of the poster you are ignoring, and once their name is in the box, look over to the far right and click the 'Okay' button. All done!
Rule #4
Regarding infractions, currently they carry a value of one point each, and that point will expire in 31 days. If at any point a poster is carrying three points at the same time, that poster will be suspended until the oldest of the three points expires.
Rule #5
When you share or paste content or articles from another website, you must include the URL/link back to where you found it, who wrote it, and what website it's from. Said content will be removed if this doesn't happen.
An example:
If I copy and paste an article from the Indianapolis Star website, I would post something like this:
http://www.linktothearticlegoeshere.com/article
Title of the Article
Author's Name
Indianapolis Star
Rule #6
We cannot tolerate illegal videos on Pacers Digest. This means do not share any links to them, do not mention any websites that host them or link to them, do not describe how to find them in any way, and do not ask about them. Posts doing anything of the sort will be removed, the offenders will be contacted privately, and if the problem becomes habitual, you will be suspended, and if it still persists, you will probably be banned.
The legal means of watching or listening to NBA games are NBA League Pass Broadband (for US, or for International; both cost money) and NBA Audio League Pass (which is free). Look for them on NBA.com.
Rule #7
Provocative statements in a signature, or as an avatar, or as the 'tagline' beneath a poster's username (where it says 'Member' or 'Administrator' by default, if it is not altered) are an unwanted distraction that will more than likely be removed on sight. There can be shades of gray to this, but in general this could be something political or religious that is likely going to provoke or upset people, or otherwise something that is mean-spirited at the expense of a poster, a group of people, or a population.
It may or may not go without saying, but this goes for threads and posts as well, particularly when it's not made on the off-topic board (Market Square).
We do make exceptions if we feel the content is both innocuous and unlikely to cause social problems on the forum (such as wishing someone a Merry Christmas or a Happy Easter), and we also also make exceptions if such topics come up with regards to a sports figure (such as the Lance Stephenson situation bringing up discussions of domestic abuse and the law, or when Jason Collins came out as gay and how that lead to some discussion about gay rights).
However, once the discussion seems to be more/mostly about the political issues instead of the sports figure or his specific situation, the thread is usually closed.
Rule #8
We prefer self-restraint and/or modesty when making jokes or off topic comments in a sports discussion thread. They can be fun, but sometimes they derail or distract from a topic, and we don't want to see that happen. If we feel it is a problem, we will either delete or move those posts from the thread.
Rule #9
Generally speaking, we try to be a "PG-13" rated board, and we don't want to see sexual content or similarly suggestive content. Vulgarity is a more muddled issue, though again we prefer things to lean more towards "PG-13" than "R". If we feel things have gone too far, we will step in.
Rule #10
We like small signatures, not big signatures. The bigger the signature, the more likely it is an annoying or distracting signature.
Rule #11
Do not advertise anything without talking about it with the administrators first. This includes advertising with your signature, with your avatar, through private messaging, and/or by making a thread or post.
Whether your are a long standing forum member or whether you have just registered today, it's a good idea to read and review the rules below so that you have a very good idea of what to expect when you come to Pacers Digest.
A quick note to new members: Your posts will not immediately show up when you make them. An administrator has to approve at least your first post before the forum software will later upgrade your account to the status of a fully-registered member. This usually happens within a couple of hours or so after your post(s) is/are approved, so you may need to be a little patient at first.
Why do we do this? So that it's more difficult for spammers (be they human or robot) to post, and so users who are banned cannot immediately re-register and start dousing people with verbal flames.
Below are the rules of Pacers Digest. After you have read them, you will have a very good sense of where we are coming from, what we expect, what we don't want to see, and how we react to things.
Rule #1
Pacers Digest is intended to be a place to discuss basketball without having to deal with the kinds of behaviors or attitudes that distract people from sticking with the discussion of the topics at hand. These unwanted distractions can come in many forms, and admittedly it can sometimes be tricky to pin down each and every kind that can rear its ugly head, but we feel that the following examples and explanations cover at least a good portion of that ground and should at least give people a pretty good idea of the kinds of things we actively discourage:
"Anyone who __________ is a liar / a fool / an idiot / a blind homer / has their head buried in the sand / a blind hater / doesn't know basketball / doesn't watch the games"
"People with intelligence will agree with me when I say that __________"
"Only stupid people think / believe / do ___________"
"I can't wait to hear something from PosterX when he/she sees that **insert a given incident or current event that will have probably upset or disappointed PosterX here**"
"He/she is just delusional"
"This thread is stupid / worthless / embarrassing"
"I'm going to take a moment to point and
/ laugh at PosterX / GroupOfPeopleY who thought / believed *insert though/belief here*""Remember when PosterX said OldCommentY that no longer looks good?
"In general, if a comment goes from purely on topic to something 'ad hominem' (personal jabs, personal shots, attacks, flames, however you want to call it, towards a person, or a group of people, or a given city/state/country of people), those are most likely going to be found intolerable.
We also dissuade passive aggressive behavior. This can be various things, but common examples include statements that are basically meant to imply someone is either stupid or otherwise incapable of holding a rational conversation. This can include (but is not limited to) laughing at someone's conclusions rather than offering an honest rebuttal, asking people what game they were watching, or another common problem is Poster X will say "that player isn't that bad" and then Poster Y will say something akin to "LOL you think that player is good". We're not going to tolerate those kinds of comments out of respect for the community at large and for the sake of trying to just have an honest conversation.
Now, does the above cover absolutely every single kind of distraction that is unwanted? Probably not, but you should by now have a good idea of the general types of things we will be discouraging. The above examples are meant to give you a good feel for / idea of what we're looking for. If something new or different than the above happens to come along and results in the same problem (that being, any other attitude or behavior that ultimately distracts from actually just discussing the topic at hand, or that is otherwise disrespectful to other posters), we can and we will take action to curb this as well, so please don't take this to mean that if you managed to technically avoid saying something exactly like one of the above examples that you are then somehow off the hook.
That all having been said, our goal is to do so in a generally kind and respectful way, and that doesn't mean the moment we see something we don't like that somebody is going to be suspended or banned, either. It just means that at the very least we will probably say something about it, quite possibly snipping out the distracting parts of the post in question while leaving alone the parts that are actually just discussing the topics, and in the event of a repeating or excessive problem, then we will start issuing infractions to try to further discourage further repeat problems, and if it just never seems to improve, then finally suspensions or bans will come into play. We would prefer it never went that far, and most of the time for most of our posters, it won't ever have to.
A slip up every once and a while is pretty normal, but, again, when it becomes repetitive or excessive, something will be done. Something occasional is probably going to be let go (within reason), but when it starts to become habitual or otherwise a pattern, odds are very good that we will step in.
There's always a small minority that like to push people's buttons and/or test their own boundaries with regards to the administrators, and in the case of someone acting like that, please be aware that this is not a court of law, but a private website run by people who are simply trying to do the right thing as they see it. If we feel that you are a special case that needs to be dealt with in an exceptional way because your behavior isn't explicitly mirroring one of our above examples of what we generally discourage, we can and we will take atypical action to prevent this from continuing if you are not cooperative with us.
Also please be aware that you will not be given a pass simply by claiming that you were 'only joking,' because quite honestly, when someone really is just joking, for one thing most people tend to pick up on the joke, including the person or group that is the target of the joke, and for another thing, in the event where an honest joke gets taken seriously and it upsets or angers someone, the person who is truly 'only joking' will quite commonly go out of his / her way to apologize and will try to mend fences. People who are dishonest about their statements being 'jokes' do not do so, and in turn that becomes a clear sign of what is really going on. It's nothing new.
In any case, quite frankly, the overall quality and health of the entire forum's community is more important than any one troublesome user will ever be, regardless of exactly how a problem is exhibiting itself, and if it comes down to us having to make a choice between you versus the greater health and happiness of the entire community, the community of this forum will win every time.
Lastly, there are also some posters, who are generally great contributors and do not otherwise cause any problems, who sometimes feel it's their place to provoke or to otherwise 'mess with' that small minority of people described in the last paragraph, and while we possibly might understand why you might feel you WANT to do something like that, the truth is we can't actually tolerate that kind of behavior from you any more than we can tolerate the behavior from them. So if we feel that you are trying to provoke those other posters into doing or saying something that will get themselves into trouble, then we will start to view you as a problem as well, because of the same reason as before: The overall health of the forum comes first, and trying to stir the pot with someone like that doesn't help, it just makes it worse. Some will simply disagree with this philosophy, but if so, then so be it because ultimately we have to do what we think is best so long as it's up to us.
If you see a problem that we haven't addressed, the best and most appropriate course for a forum member to take here is to look over to the left of the post in question. See underneath that poster's name, avatar, and other info, down where there's a little triangle with an exclamation point (!) in it? Click that. That allows you to report the post to the admins so we can definitely notice it and give it a look to see what we feel we should do about it. Beyond that, obviously it's human nature sometimes to want to speak up to the poster in question who has bothered you, but we would ask that you try to refrain from doing so because quite often what happens is two or more posters all start going back and forth about the original offending post, and suddenly the entire thread is off topic or otherwise derailed. So while the urge to police it yourself is understandable, it's best to just report it to us and let us handle it. Thank you!
All of the above is going to be subject to a case by case basis, but generally and broadly speaking, this should give everyone a pretty good idea of how things will typically / most often be handled.
Rule #2
If the actions of an administrator inspire you to make a comment, criticism, or express a concern about it, there is a wrong place and a couple of right places to do so.
The wrong place is to do so in the original thread in which the administrator took action. For example, if a post gets an infraction, or a post gets deleted, or a comment within a larger post gets clipped out, in a thread discussing Paul George, the wrong thing to do is to distract from the discussion of Paul George by adding your off topic thoughts on what the administrator did.
The right places to do so are:
A) Start a thread about the specific incident you want to talk about on the Feedback board. This way you are able to express yourself in an area that doesn't throw another thread off topic, and this way others can add their two cents as well if they wish, and additionally if there's something that needs to be said by the administrators, that is where they will respond to it.
B) Send a private message to the administrators, and they can respond to you that way.
If this is done the wrong way, those comments will be deleted, and if it's a repeating problem then it may also receive an infraction as well.
Rule #3
If a poster is bothering you, and an administrator has not or will not deal with that poster to the extent that you would prefer, you have a powerful tool at your disposal, one that has recently been upgraded and is now better than ever: The ability to ignore a user.
When you ignore a user, you will unfortunately still see some hints of their existence (nothing we can do about that), however, it does the following key things:
A) Any post they make will be completely invisible as you scroll through a thread.
B) The new addition to this feature: If someone QUOTES a user you are ignoring, you do not have to read who it was, or what that poster said, unless you go out of your way to click on a link to find out who it is and what they said.
To utilize this feature, from any page on Pacers Digest, scroll to the top of the page, look to the top right where it says 'Settings' and click that. From the settings page, look to the left side of the page where it says 'My Settings', and look down from there until you see 'Edit Ignore List' and click that. From here, it will say 'Add a Member to Your List...' Beneath that, click in the text box to the right of 'User Name', type in or copy & paste the username of the poster you are ignoring, and once their name is in the box, look over to the far right and click the 'Okay' button. All done!
Rule #4
Regarding infractions, currently they carry a value of one point each, and that point will expire in 31 days. If at any point a poster is carrying three points at the same time, that poster will be suspended until the oldest of the three points expires.
Rule #5
When you share or paste content or articles from another website, you must include the URL/link back to where you found it, who wrote it, and what website it's from. Said content will be removed if this doesn't happen.
An example:
If I copy and paste an article from the Indianapolis Star website, I would post something like this:
http://www.linktothearticlegoeshere.com/article
Title of the Article
Author's Name
Indianapolis Star
Rule #6
We cannot tolerate illegal videos on Pacers Digest. This means do not share any links to them, do not mention any websites that host them or link to them, do not describe how to find them in any way, and do not ask about them. Posts doing anything of the sort will be removed, the offenders will be contacted privately, and if the problem becomes habitual, you will be suspended, and if it still persists, you will probably be banned.
The legal means of watching or listening to NBA games are NBA League Pass Broadband (for US, or for International; both cost money) and NBA Audio League Pass (which is free). Look for them on NBA.com.
Rule #7
Provocative statements in a signature, or as an avatar, or as the 'tagline' beneath a poster's username (where it says 'Member' or 'Administrator' by default, if it is not altered) are an unwanted distraction that will more than likely be removed on sight. There can be shades of gray to this, but in general this could be something political or religious that is likely going to provoke or upset people, or otherwise something that is mean-spirited at the expense of a poster, a group of people, or a population.
It may or may not go without saying, but this goes for threads and posts as well, particularly when it's not made on the off-topic board (Market Square).
We do make exceptions if we feel the content is both innocuous and unlikely to cause social problems on the forum (such as wishing someone a Merry Christmas or a Happy Easter), and we also also make exceptions if such topics come up with regards to a sports figure (such as the Lance Stephenson situation bringing up discussions of domestic abuse and the law, or when Jason Collins came out as gay and how that lead to some discussion about gay rights).
However, once the discussion seems to be more/mostly about the political issues instead of the sports figure or his specific situation, the thread is usually closed.
Rule #8
We prefer self-restraint and/or modesty when making jokes or off topic comments in a sports discussion thread. They can be fun, but sometimes they derail or distract from a topic, and we don't want to see that happen. If we feel it is a problem, we will either delete or move those posts from the thread.
Rule #9
Generally speaking, we try to be a "PG-13" rated board, and we don't want to see sexual content or similarly suggestive content. Vulgarity is a more muddled issue, though again we prefer things to lean more towards "PG-13" than "R". If we feel things have gone too far, we will step in.
Rule #10
We like small signatures, not big signatures. The bigger the signature, the more likely it is an annoying or distracting signature.
Rule #11
Do not advertise anything without talking about it with the administrators first. This includes advertising with your signature, with your avatar, through private messaging, and/or by making a thread or post.
See more
See less
-
-
Re: Chad Ford's 9.0
Mason had the advantage of being completely roided up and also insane.Originally posted by Slick Pinkham View Post
Greene is very short. Compare him to Hummel, who is also being looked at as a tweener 3/4: in shoes, Hummel is 1" taller; barefoot, 1.5". Hummel also out-benched him 13-9.
Even Hans, who clearly can't rebound at the PF position, is 2 inches (!) taller than Green. Standing verts are Hans: 27.5", Green: 28".
Green is all heart, and fairly skilled, but physically, he do not seem to measure up to NBA PF standards. Even if he can play the 3, which there is no sign of, we do not need a b/u 3, do we?Comment
-
Re: Chad Ford's 9.0
Speaking of sweet strokes...Originally posted by 2minutes twoa View Post
Twitter / ChrisEmmaScout
The kid's 6'10" and just put up 20/5/3 in the Big Ten (44% from downtown) and is listed as going undrafted in both DX's and NBADraft.net's mocks. The perils of being a white American...Originally posted by TwitterComment
-
Re: Chad Ford's 9.0
Nice stroke. But his issue - penguin arms. He could as well be 6'6. without speed, strength or length, I'm not sure how often he could get that shot off in the NBA.Originally posted by GrangeRusHibbert View PostComment
-
Re: Chad Ford's 9.0
first of all, give me a break about the perils of being a white American. if he's in the league in two years we will talk.Originally posted by GrangeRusHibbert View Post
second of all, shooting that well in a workout is impressive for your average joe, but not really for d-1. watch pregame warmups, and the most unlikely guys are knocking down threes like nothing. I remember watching Chris Kramer hit something like 10 in a row, and he shot 20-something % in games.Comment
-
Re: Chad Ford's 9.0
Thanks for the laugh.....I can only picture the way he looks.....with short flat flippers for arms trying to shoot the ball. Good analogy....Originally posted by ballism View Post
Ash from Army of Darkness: Good...Bad...I'm the guy with the gun.Comment
-
Re: Chad Ford's 9.0
So there are a few reasons, we all see that he has vision, and can pass, and score at times, but first off from watching some of his tape and seeing him play on television he did not really standout as having much potential. I question how easy it will be for him to get his shot of in the league and also am unsure of how his defense will translate, he has the 4th smallest reach in the draft so I do not think that is helping.Originally posted by pacer4ever View PostI dont get not wannting him at #26 best passer in the draft and has what we need in terms of pg talent. He makes his team better and finds the open man before anyone else sees it.
I know he worked out for the Jazz Kevin O'Conner spoke really high of him.
He has had 17 workouts I hope he sucked in all of them
i am still saying he goes 1st rd he is more than a 1st rd talent IMO.
http://www.nba.com/jazz/video/originals/
I agree that he may be gone in the first, especially with GSW picking at 30, but I also think there are too many good point guard prospects in that range as well and choosing between a guy like him and Teague I would go with Teague, they put up almost identical numbers their freshman years in college and I feel Teague has more potential.
I just think we could get more value at the pick personally, I would not mind trading and grabbing him in the 2nd, if we could flip DC for him I would go ahead and do that.
Also I would like to say, with Bird out of the picture I have an even vaguer view of who we will target now, or what moves we will make.
Sounds like you want a guy like Jeff Taylor...well for the most part.Originally posted by Eleazar View Post
Why so SERIOUS 
Comment
-
Re: Chad Ford's 9.0
Good luck to John Shurna getting that push shot off in the NBAComment
-
Re: Chad Ford's 9.0
9.2 - no changes for us. The middle of the 1st gets reshuffled again.
http://insider.espn.go.com/nba/draft...raft-version-9
............................
[#9] Detroit
John Henson
PF
6-foot-10
Weight: 216 pounds
Age: 21
School: North Carolina
Analysis: Meyers Leonard occupied this spot for roughly six hours before Henson reclaimed it. Why? Henson, Leonard, Tyler Zeller, Perry Jones, Terrence Jones and Jared Sullinger all worked out in Detroit on Monday and the consensus was that Henson really shined. The Pistons really need a shot-blocker and Henson fits the bill.
New Orleans
(via Wolves)
Austin Rivers
SG
6-foot-5
Weight: 203 pounds
Age: 19
School: Duke
Analysis: After the first nine picks, things start to break down a little bit. The Hornets can go in a lot of directions and also are exploring trades. Sources say they offered the Rockets the 10th pick for Nos. 14 and 16 but were turned down last week.
If they keep the pick, they really need help at center, point guard and small forward. Although Rivers doesn't fill any of those positions, I'm told the Hornets have been enamored with him. Tyler Zeller, Jeremy Lamb and Moe Harkless are other possibilities here.
Portland
Tyler Zeller
C
7-foot-0
Weight: 247 pounds
Age: 22
School: North Carolina
Analysis: If the Blazers go with a guard at No. 6, don't be surprised if they go big with their other selection. Zeller isn't a sexy pick, but he is capable of playing right now, has solid size for his position and runs the floor well. Other possibilities here include Dion Waiters, Austin Rivers, Jeremy Lamb and Terrence Ross.
Milwaukee
Meyers Leonard
C
7-foot-1
Weight: 250 pounds
Age: 20
School: Illinois
Analysis: The Bucks are hoping that a big man will still be on the board at No. 12. Under this scenario they get their wish. Leonard may be a bit of a project, but he's got NBA size and athleticism and he plays pretty hard. Terrence Ross is also a possibility here.
Phoenix
Jeremy Lamb
SG
6-foot-5
Weight: 179 pounds
Age: 20
School: UConn
Analysis: Lamb suffered a high ankle sprain in a workout in Toronto and has struggled to get well enough to resume workouts. Although GMs think he's talented, they have questioned his toughness. His inability to work out has hurt him a bit, too.
However, Lamb went into Phoenix this weekend and toughed out a workout on the bad ankle. A source in Phoenix told me the Suns were impressed with his toughness and willingness to fight through the workout. His performance there could keep him in the lottery. If Lamb is gone, Terrence Ross, Dion Waiters and Austin Rivers are all possibilities here. So is Arnett Moultrie.
Houston
Perry Jones III
PF
6-foot-11
Weight: 234 pounds
Age: 20
School: Baylor
Analysis: Jones might be the toughest player in the draft to project right now. Everyone is both scared to take him and scared not to take him. I heard the same assessment from a number of NBA GMs the past few weeks.
Whichever GM first overcomes his fear of taking Jones gets a super-athletic 6-foot-11 forward who lacks the motor or toughness teams usually look for in a big man. At some point, the reward outweighs the risk, and that calculation probably starts here. Terrence Ross, Arnett Moultrie, Moe Harkless and Jared Sullinger are other possibilities.
Philadelphia
Terrence Ross
SG
6-foot-7
Weight: 197 pounds
Age: 21
School: Washington
Analysis: The Sixers need an athletic big man, but it will be hard for them to pass on Ross if he slides here. His shooting ability from deep, combined with his elite athleticism will be a nice fit in the Sixers' backcourt -- especially if the team trades Andre Iguodala and moves Evan Turner to the 3. Arnett Moultrie and Moe Harkless are other possibilities here. Ditto for Jared Sullinger.
........................
[#18] Rockets (via Wolves)
Arnett Moultrie
PF
6-foot-11
Weight: 223 pounds
Age: 21
School: Mississippi State
Analysis: The Wolves have agreed to send the 18th pick in the draft to the Rockets for Chase Budinger. We'll leave Arnett Moultrie here for now because the Rockets do like him. But the plan is clear. The Rockets are trying to package 14, 16 and 18 and Kyle Lowry to get multiple top-10 picks to offer to the Magic for Dwight Howard. I seriously doubt the Rockets will actually be selecting here on draft night.
.............................
[#26] Indiana
Draymond Green
SF
6-foot-8
Weight: 236 pounds
Age: 22
School: Michigan State
Analysis: The Pacers have a big workout scheduled for Tuesday with Green, Will Barton, Kim English and Jeff Taylor that could decide the No. 26 pick. I'm hearing increasingly that the Pacers are very high on Green. He's a smart, tough player who can come in and fill a need immediately for Indiana. Larry Bird has made similar picks in years past and done OK with them. I don't think Green will slide past here. If he's off the board, Barton could be the guy.
....................Comment
-
Re: Chad Ford's 9.0
Chad's take on Draymond Green and other interesting insights:
(it appears Chad and some scouts have really high hopes for some of these players)
http://insider.espn.go.com/nba/blog?...-key-questions
With the NBA draft just two days away, here are 10 pressing questions heading into the draft.
1. Is Anthony Davis really all that?
Yes. He's all that.
It is rare when a prospect lives up to the hype. Davis has done that and more. Not only does he pass the smell test physically (ideal height, great athlete, huge wingspan), he also was superproductive as a freshman (highest player efficiency rating of any player in college basketball, highest score ever in John Hollinger's Draft Rater, elite rebounder and shot-blocker on the defensive end). Plus, he has all the right intangibles (super motor, tough, humble, hardworking, great attitude).
Physical tools? Check. Production? Check. Intangibles? Check.
Oh, and Davis led his NCAA team to a national title in his freshman year.
Winner? Check.
It is very rare when all four of these items align in a meaningful way.
Davis passes the NBA scout test, too. There isn't an NBA scout or NBA GM in the league who doesn't have him No. 1 on his board. I'll take it a step further. Every GM and scout I spoke with told me he'd take Davis No. 1 in the 2011, 2010, 2009 and 2008 drafts. Yes, ahead of Derrick Rose, Blake Griffin, John Wall and Kyrie Irving.
So what are you worried about?
He needs to add weight. Fair enough. He does need to get stronger. So have other top prospects before him.
He reminds me of Marcus Camby. I've heard that one. Camby is probably his floor. Many GMs and scouts believe that players like Tim Duncan and Kevin Garnett are his ceiling.
He might not make a major impact in Year 1. Maybe. But many said that about him coming into Kentucky, and he put that to rest by midseason.
In short, Davis is one of the best No. 1 picks to come along in a decade. Barring a Greg Oden-like rash of injuries, he's expected to be a multiyear All-Star.
2. Besides Davis, who will have the biggest impact as a rookie?
Who is the most NBA-ready player for the 2012-13 season? It usually depends more on the team a player lands on than the player himself.
I think it could be the Toronto Raptors' Jonas Valanciunas. Many NBA scouts believe he would have been the No. 2 pick in this year's draft had he not entered the 2011 draft. Valanciunas spent this past year in Lithuania and will be a rookie this season. The Raptors likely will give him lots of playing time early, as they think he has the makings of a star.
If you're asking about players from this draft, three players come to mind.
Kansas Jayhawks forward Thomas Robinson has an NBA body and NBA skills. If he lands on a bad Charlotte team, he should come in and put up big numbers right away.
I also could see Harrison Barnes putting up big numbers if he lands in Cleveland. He has a pretty big chip on his shoulder, and playing with an elite point guard like Kyrie Irving could really elevate his game.
Syracuse guard Dion Waiters is another possibility if he lands on the right team. He has an NBA player's body and can get to the basket at will. He could put up big, Tyreke Evans-esque numbers as a rookie on a bad team.
3. In five years, who will be the second-best player from the 2012 draft?
Florida Gators wing Bradley Beal has moved into the position of the consensus No. 2 player in the draft. About 70 percent of the GMs and scouts I surveyed now have Beal at No. 2 on their big boards. Beal's NBA body, excellent athletic ability, sweet shooting stroke and winning attitude have scouts convinced that his floor is Eric Gordon and his ceiling may be Ray Allen.
I'm a big Beal fan, but I think that Michael Kidd-Gilchrist could be the second-best player in the draft. He has more holes in his game than several of the top picks in the draft. But he's also the youngest player and hardest worker, and his flaws (shooting and ball-handling) are correctable.
The things Kidd-Gilchrist has now (ultimate motor, toughness, the ability to defend multiple positions, leadership) are harder to duplicate. He just might be a Gerald Wallace clone, or he might be a saner version of Ron Artest. But if we are talking ceilings, I think his is Scottie Pippen. Pair him with an elite scorer, and I think he'll have a few rings by the time he retires.
4. Andre Drummond: The next Dwight Howard or the next Kwame Brown?
Who knows? Really.
Drummond has all the tools to be the next Howard. At 18, he's already 7 feet tall, 280 pounds. He has a 7-foot-6 wingspan and has elite athletic abilities. That's not a basketball player; that's a basketball god.
But he's also the second-youngest player in the draft, and at times it shows. He doesn't always play hard. He takes plays and sometimes entire games off. His skill level (highlighted by his awful 29.5 percent free throw shooting) is a major work in progress. He doesn't always work hard off the court to improve his game. And when you talk to him, he sounds more like a 16-year-old trapped in the body of a 28-year-old giant.
Anyone who says he knows what Drummond will be is a psychic or a fraud. If he lands on the right team, gets the right coaching and is open to dedicating himself completely to the game, he could be the next Howard.
If Drummond is left on his own, isn't forced to develop or just decides that he doesn't really like basketball, Brown isn't out of the question.
More likely, he's somewhere in between those guys. DeAndre Jordan, anyone?
5. Austin Rivers: The next Kobe Bryant or the next Jerryd Bayless?
I don't think there's a more polarizing player in the draft than Rivers. Fans and scouts tend to love him or hate him. I know that several teams have him ranked in the top 10 on their big boards. I know several others that have him in the second round. How's that for a draft range?
Rivers does model his offensive game after Bryant's -- for better and for worse. He's a superaggressive scorer. He has a killer crossover, has mastered the fadeaway J and wants the ball in his hands at the end of close games. He loves himself some hero ball.
Again, for good and for bad, Rivers also has modeled his off-the-court behaviors to emulate Bryant's. He works hard. He's tough. He's superconfident. However, he also has a rap as a selfish player who bristles at teammates and doesn't know how to share.
Factor in Rivers' pedestrian shooting numbers, poor free throw shooting and poor assist-to-turnover ratio, and suddenly he looks very un-Kobe-like.
But the real concern for Rivers is that he physically doesn't hold a candle to Bryant. He's not as big, not as long and not as explosive as Bryant was when he entered the league. Take away Bryant's size, length and explosiveness, and Kobe isn't Kobe. That's why, in some respects, Rivers looks a lot like Raptors combo guard Bayless.
Whichever team takes Rivers will take a risk. It could pay off big time or blow up in a team's face.
6. Who is the most underrated player outside the lottery?
Three players stand out to me -- Baylor's Quincy Miller, Washington's Tony Wroten and Michigan State's Draymond Green.
There couldn't be three more different players than Miller, Wroten and Green. And I think NBA GMs may regret letting all three guys slide into the late first round.
Miller was widely regarded as a top-10 pick coming into Baylor last season as a freshman. However, the effects of an ACL injury suffered the previous spring, combined with a shifting role at Baylor once Perry Jones returned to the lineup, led to a fairly mediocre freshman campaign.
However, a number of things suggest Miller could be much better as he matures. He has great size for his position and can really score the basketball from anywhere on the floor. Once his ACL injury is healed (remember, it can take up to two years to fully recover), I think he'll look more athletic than he showed as a freshman. In addition, John Hollinger's Draft Rater (which every year outperforms what actual GMs are doing in the draft) had Miller ranked as a top-10 pick.
To top it off, most NBA scouts and GMs I spoke with felt Miller would have been a top-10 pick in 2013 had he remained in school. The talent is there for a team that uses it the right way.
Wroten, on physical tools and skills, is one of the four or five most talented players in the draft. He has elite size for his position and is a terrific athlete. He also is a special passer and can really get to the basket, and he can be a lockdown defender. However, Wroten's broken jump shot, tendency to play out of control and reputation as a team chemistry killer have damaged his stock.
Wroten has very real obstacles to overcome and could be Lance Stephenson 2.0, but with so much raw talent there, he also has the potential to be a Gary Payton-esque player in the NBA someday. If he matures and fixes that jumper ... wow.
Green isn't anything like Wroten. He is not a great athlete, plays questionable defense and doesn't really have a position in the NBA. However, he's an excellent scorer both inside and outside, rebounds the basketball, has a super high basketball IQ and is a winner.
On top of that, every advanced statistic I've seen suggests Green one of the top players in the draft. Although it's clear that he has limitations, he's just a basketball player -- the type of glue guy who helps good teams win and stays in the league far longer than anyone expects. I get why teams wouldn't take him in the top 10. But after that, if I were a GM, he'd be fair game.
7. Which prospect do NBA GMs fear most?
Baylor's Perry Jones.
Teams are afraid to take him in the lottery. However, they're equally afraid not to take him in the lottery.
No one is really sure what to do with Jones. He's a freak athlete with elite size and skills to play three positions on the floor. However, he's been tagged with the dreaded "soft" label. Teams worry he has no motor, and the position he favors at the next level, small forward, is the position he's furthest from being ready to play.
If you haven't read the excellent blog post on TrueHoop about Jones and his questionable motor, pause and do it right now.
Now you're confused, too, right?
If Jones went at pick No. 5, I could defend it. If he went at pick No. 20, I could defend that, too.
8. Given Jared Sullinger's back issues, how far will he drop?
Well, according to the NBA, he's falling out of the lottery. The league issued its green room invitations to the top 14 prospects in the draft on Monday, and Sullinger wasn't on the list.
The NBA creates the list by surveying all the GMs in the lottery. The NBA's Stu Jackson said that the feedback it received had Sullinger in the late teens to early 20s.
That sounds about right. At some point in the first round, the reward begins to outweigh the risk with Sullinger. He might be the best low-post scorer in the draft, and advanced metrics on him are off the charts. He is undersized and plays below the rim, but the NBA has had a rash of successful power forwards with the same limitations.
If his back is fixable, as his camp suggests it is, he'll be a steal for a team that takes him in the late teens or early 20s. I don't think he'll get past the Magic at No. 19.
9. Which second-rounder is most likely to make an all-rookie team?
My joke, every time I get asked this question, is simply: "If we knew that, they wouldn't be in the second round."
OK, but I'll try to answer the question anyway. Last year Washington's Isaiah Thomas was the 60th pick in the draft and made the NBA's All-Rookie second team.
I think that guy in this draft could be Maryland's Terrell Stoglin. He's an undersized scoring guard, like Thomas, who can really light it up. I'm not even sure that Stoglin will be drafted, but a number of teams told me he kicked the butts of several first-round prospects in workouts.
I could see Stoglin putting up instant offense coming off the bench for a bad team.
10. How many draft night trades will happen in the lottery?
I'm going with three. I think the Bobcats will swap the No. 2 pick with someone -- likely the Cavs. The Cavs could send back pick No. 4 and either the 24th pick or picks 33 and 34.
I think the Kings are likely to move No. 5, likely to the Rockets for picks 14 and 16 and perhaps an additional player. The Rockets already agreed to trade Chase Budinger to Minnesota for the 18th pick in the draft. The 18th pick just gives them more ammunition to perhaps add another top-10 pick in the hopes of putting together a package to trade for Dwight Howard.
The Blazers, Warriors, Raptors and Hornets are also looking at various options with their picks. I think the Blazers at No. 6 or No. 11 are the likeliest of that bunch to make a trade. They have interest in Jazz forward Paul Millsap and Rockets guard Kyle Lowry.Last edited by ballism; 06-26-2012, 03:09 PM.Comment
-
Re: Chad Ford's 9.0
This makes me feel better about a Green selection, but I still don't know where we play him. I don't know if he can guard 3's, and if you select him to play the 4, then you either have a jam with Psycho T or you're selling low on Hansbrough through a trade.Originally posted by ballism View PostComment
-
Re: Chad Ford's 9.0
I really don't see how he could guard 3s, unless he's lost alot muscle/weight and got alot quicker.Comment
-
Re: Chad Ford's 9.0
Green is a career backup to me, and will never be a guy expected to crack the starting line up, when he gets put in games I expect whatever coach he plays for to have him play hustle man defense on who ever he guards and try to frustrate them, shot open jumpers and contend for rebounds. He will never be a wow player in my book, and most likely will never have a set role, but he will contribute. I would not waste anything more than a mid 2nd on him though, I think you can find qualities in a UDFA that will make him just as valuable off the bench as Green. Why so SERIOUS Comment
-
Re: Chad Ford's 9.0
Be nice if Quincy was there at 26th.First time in a long time, I've been happy with the team that was constructed, and now they struggle. I blame the coach.Comment
-
Re: Chad Ford's 9.0
Be nice if he was there and we did not pass on him... Interesting thing he has the potential to be KD lite, I wonder with Prichard passing on KD the first time would he try to grab a player with similar game and potential if he had the chance.Originally posted by Sparhawk View Post
BTW KD way better than Miller at this age, and mindset was different, not saying He will turn out to be KD, lol. Why so SERIOUS Comment
Comment